possibility, i suppose. that is it for us tonight, thank you for being with us. join us tomorrow. good night from new york. neil: all right, here is what i am saying at the white house. not who i'm inviting to the white house, that is what is going on. mark it down, nothing new, same old president, same old pals. the service employees international union, national education association, american federation of state county and municipal employees, center for american progress, and that is just half of the union groups meeting with the president today. it was rounded out by others who all might have wonderful ideas but when i cornered one earlier today on fox news ahead of the national education association about what touch i they might he

offered, what don't abort ideas they might have given the president, this tells you all you needed to know. look at this. neil: are you open to cutting anything? >> we have to look at the whole picture. neil: you want to leave medicare alone, don't want to touch medicaid, what are you going to give up? >> out of limits the tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. neil: he kept arguing in this iiterview for what is fair, in the name of fiscal fairness leaving aside those who pay no income taxes, not all their fault, i'm not going after soldiers, i'm not going after a series. that was just a few years ago. my point is, it has rocketed close to half the american people not paying any income tax at all.

how did it get that high? how did it get that high? is the only ideas offered the name of fairness is to stick it to the rich more. these union guys meeting with the president, you can imagine they echoed that theme. there's nothing wrong with the president thanking those who returned him to office. there's everything wrong with giving the appearance that no one else really mattered. today's ceos are getting a chance tomorrow and republican and democratic leaders later in the week but the fact of the matter is the opening tone, former ubs chairman. mort, i was talking during the break, i am not encouraged by the opening tone. >> so dismayed when the president made his previous speech in which he said he would not accept any bill that didn't

increase taxes on the wealthy. neil: he kept it general, right? >> my views don't have a press conference. john boehner shouldn't have a press conference. get john boehner at a small group of congressman together and say what can we work out? all we're doing is playing politics, everybody will get locked into one position or another, let's see what we can work out and then announce it is something we have agreed upon. that is the way you do it, instead you'rsteadier quebec thy politics that didn't produce what we needed to have. neil: what worries me is this hope is dashed. >> they should have put together a bipartisan group, all they're doing is put on defensive by the self-interest groups they are meeting with. does not make much sense.

neil: they made it very clear, nothing from us. and he owes them, right? >> they got him reelected. neil: time is urgent, time to say time is wasting. >> who didn't have to completely ignore the political thank you, but if you sttrted off and have a couple of meetings with the leaders of the democrats in the house and the republicans in the house and in the senate, and do it on a bipartisan basis. the only way it will get done any kind of a serious way. lou: do you think republicans have given up on this notion they can cobble something together? >> i don't know the answer to that. if he thinks he can proceed without gaining cooperation of the republicans, in the "wall street journal" he might be familiar with -- you probably

get to it late in the day. mitch mcconnell was interviewed, a very good interview. he points out he has not had a meeting with the president in over a year and a half. the subject of a story in "the new york times" when the first 18 months of the present administration never had a one-on-one meeting with him. i met with the house finance committee for five months ago, they too had not had a meeting with the president. if you have none of that trust you can build up comic makes it so much more difficult. it is mysterious how this man works in terms of trying to get anything. neil: i know what he's working on. i know he won the election, but people mistake a victory for a mandate today which is just about assembling a man cave. leaving that aside, people

interpret too much from that and both sides have to juggle here. >> if he is consistent with his pattern, we will have a problem. neil: he is not giving up on the tax hike on the rich. is their flexibility? would he be open to eliminating deductions are closin were closg loopholes and all that? would that cover, or as chuck schumer has indicated, do both, close their loopholes and raise their rates. double whammy. which is shocking for new york senator in the capital world. >> his own bipartisan commission ignored. it is not perfect but it is a framework to begin. if i were the republican party, i would take initiative and gives recommendations as to what would be a balanced approach with revenue increases as well as reductions in expenses and kind of take initiative, because i don't think he will reach out.

by the same token, you have to get the approval of the house, and john boehner said we will not raise rates. we will increase taxes to eliminating various special privileges and call them whatever you will. that is another approach to doing it, okay? what they have got to do, to not happen publicly because everybody is trying to hit the other person. do it privately. but he will not have a private relations with these people. that is one of the problems of the presidency. the president has been very successful. what we really should be talking about, and it can republicans need to take the initiative, he came to me and said 500,000 who will raise your rates from 35 to 38, i'm okay with that. i want to see a match reduction in expenditures and i would

leave the 250 people alone because many of those soul proprietorships, don't want to put a lot of pressure on them. i don't know if they will. bona fide use problems with the situation unfortunately everyone i speak to, everything i've read to themselves as the smartest man at the table. if you're not going to listen, nobody has a patent on being right. he acts like he does. when he started health care, first thing he did, tort reform off the table. took it right off the table. neil: normally you would think he has no elections to worry about. he can be big, he can go beyond what he has done before. it is still early, way early. i don't see that right now. >> it is a little early to come

to that conclusion, but normally you would have a situation in his first term he would try to be constructive because that would have given him a better platform on which to run for a second term. you are not running for reelection. neil: a dozen of democratic senators who say we are, so don't you have to look after their interests which mark but forget the politics of it. neil: we ar we're beyond the rey of needing it. i don't think that is sinking in. >> 's first term he could not run on records we had to run on ththese social issues facing the country. in my view the republicans have not adjusted to the democracy of the electorate and they hav andt wells emphasized. neil: the reality is they're running with their tails between their legs feeling they were blown out in a landslide. the fact of the matter is they're the ones on defense, and the democrats are the ones saying not only the top rate, but get rid of deficits, we will

nail ou to the wall. and for the investment communi community, capital gains, dividends. >> he is not inviting anybody from wall street. neil: the only financial figure there tomorrow is american express. none of the others are invited. >> they are inviting people on alphabetical basis. neil: i am sure. when you did that endorsement, not endorsing the president, but mitt romney, is he very pro-obama town, did that ever? >> i did no could not think of n those terms. we endorsed obama the first time around.

frankly i have been a democrat my entire life. having said that, had enough exposure to the administration fairly close up to the president and his closest aide and they came to the conclusion that these people just don't know what they're doing. there is a saying we have in canada but those that follow. if you're going to try cross-country skiing the first time, pick a small country. get somebody there who knows how to run something. unfortunately there is another one, if you can't put the puck in the net, get off the ice. neil: thank you, gentlemen, all. i do think that crystallizes what is going on here when one side can't even think.

they're serious about loopholes, just like ronald reagan and come away believing that ronald reagan did you would rather get most than risk not getting any. things were a lot better than when he came in. we will have more after this. i always wait until the last minute.

can i still ship a gift in time r christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery. why? i thought jill was your soul mate. no, no it's her dad. the general's your soul mate dude what? no, no, no. he's, he's on back about providing for his little girl. hey don't worry. e-trade's got a killer investing shboard. everything is on one page, your investments, quotes, research... it's like the buffet last night. whatever helps you understand man. i'm watching you. oh yeah? well i'm watchg you, watching him. [ male announcer ] try the e-trade 360 investing dashboard.

neil: did you take a look at caterpillar stock today? jpmorgan downgraded, cut the price target was widely considered a global economic bellwether in part, not holy, but in part because of concern over the ongoing energy policies, which it whole bunch of them think will be hurtful to the u.s. interest levels with energy interests. not at all surprised by this development? >> no, really not. i find it ironic in the

headlines we see we could be energy independent by 2020, at the same time caterpillar is being downgraded because of energy concerns. it seems this administration can't get out of its own way. i don't know whether i should laugh or cry when i see these things. neil: we don't know what they're whining about, we are big into for acting, franken is at a record high. they're getting fossil fuels a record high, read the details on what is on private land versus public land, but they say there's a policy of building results. you say what? speak wit>> if it is a misrepre. said the gas prices would have to go up to push forward green energy agenda. said cars are going to be twice the efficiency buying half as much gas but offered no real

installation. neil: mitt romney got a bad rap on his campaign, making energy such a prominent feature. if we get our energy act together, if we became self-sustaining energy, we are really off to the races. not only does that create jobs and make us a lot more independent, but we are firing on all soldiers with that, and that was an integral approach beyond taxes, budgetary issues. >> believe it is the patriotic thing to do. right now we're in the import of energy. by 2020 we could be a net exporter of energy. not only does that help us from economic standpoint creating hundreds of thousands, even millions of jobs, it also helps us in the national security

standpoint so we are not taking our money and sending it to people who don't like us. neil: so what are you doing these days? how are you playing this? defensively? how is your portfolio altered? >> neil, you've got to cover the downside of this environment. they want them unprotected against losses. they're anticipating antibusiness climate, anticipating uncertainty pickling business contractions and so we're covering the downside making sure we're in a position where we can make money when the market is going up to be productive if the market is going down and lock it in on the way up. neil: what do you play besides lead futures and protecting us from nuclear fallout? >> there are three ways to have your money completely protected against loss, fb fdic insurance.

they're gravitating towards the guaranteed contract because the principle is guarantee against losses and make it the spitting and that is the important thing to do. neil: thank you very, very much. you know, when we look at this whole health care law, some a deadline set, click next year when you have to start getting everyone into the system and pay the search tax the rich will have to pay in order to continue sustaining it, there's a deadline coming on friday that almost no one is talking about. what if i told you it is potentially bigger than all those other ones coming up because it could decide the loss success or failure. on it like nobody's business after this.

neil: it is really intrinsically health care law in health care exchanges that set up a lot of them complaining this is hard to do, we can't do it right away. friday deadline for states to say whether they are there or not. telling the federal government where his state stands. governor, where do you stand on this, and whether you can move forward. >> we don't know the answer to all the questions we have asked about how the exchanges will be operated. we know they say when they want an answer from us by the end of the week. republican governors are having a conference this week and i'm sure it will be one of the major topics of discussion.

neil: when they say they want an answer, what does that mean? they want to know how you are coming along, you have the power to opt out, what? speak what they want to know whether or not we will set up a state exchange. that's a very difficult question to answer because it appears that all the flexibility that we originally thought we were going to have has now vanished, which without the flexibility, don't see why states have any real incentive to do so. neil: is there anything compelling, i apologize up front, but is there anything to compel you that you must be in this? >> well, there is only one provision in it relates to whether or not if an individual buys insurance as it will be mandated to do, whether or not they will be eligible for a failed subsidy unless if they bought it through a federal exchange as opposed to a state exchange. there is language that would indicate if they want it to a

federal exchange, they would not be entitled to a subsidy. but that really has to be clarified through the federal legislation. neil: you governors, you think about it, how a lot of power that isn't appreciated because while everybody looks at the supreme court's decision that essentially said yeah, you can't mandate able to get health insurance can be ultimately control how this is all set up, right? >> we do in terms of first of all deciding whether or not to operate a state exchange for individuals to purchase through it, but also the increased eligibility for medicaid itself in our state for example we would have been mandated prior to the supreme court to increase eligibility rules of the 138 the federal poverty level which had been 350,000 population increase in medicaid rules, a huge increase. neil: bottom line with the

president reelected and the senate widening a couple of seats, this health care train is off and running, isn't it? >> it appears so. does the federal government has the ability to keep the trains running? their incentive to the states is not that great for them to be an active participant, and if they're going to assume 100% of the cost of medicaid expansion for the first three years, that is a huge expense to the federal government. if they will be serious about trying to balance the federal government adding that kind of additional expenditure quite frankly doesn't seem to be very plausible. neil: governor, we will be watching, sir. you're all familiar if you have been watching television of hurricane cindy and the damage she wrote. an eye-popping $30 billion

request for emergency relief from andrew cuomo, the governor. $30 billion. where is that money going to go? i'm a consertive invesr. i invest in what i know. i turned 65 last week. i'm getting married. planning a life. there are risks, sure. but, there's no reward without it. i want to be prepared for the long haul. i see a world bursting with opportunities. india, china, brazil, ishares, small-caps, large-caps, ishares. industrials. low cost. every dollar counts. ishares. inme. dividends. bonds. i like bonds. ishares. commodities. diversification. choices. and i want to use the same stuff the big guys use. ishares. 9 out of 10 large, professional investors

chooseshares for their etfs. introducing thishares core, etfs for the heart of your portfolio. taefficient and low cost building blocks toelp you keep more of what you earn. call youour advisor. visit ishares.com. ishares. yeah, ishares. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objective risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing.

and and and and we're >> this is a test.

neil: you never want to look further than a crisis. and you don't want to look heartless either. a lot of folks are scratching their heads and wondering about andrew cuomo is 30 billion-dollar request to federal aid for hurricane sandy. a lot of folks want to know how he came up with that figure and also how he would spend our figure.

we have an appropriations committee member, john carter. sir, i have seen myself what is going on around here. a lot of damage for it i don't know how you put a $30.000000000 figure to it. i would worry about how the money is going to the source. >> i think that is a good comment. we have to have compassion for those who were affected. i think everybody in congress does have compassion. but we have a responsibility that is even more so today than maybe in the past. we need to look at every nickel, dime and quarter to see how this money will be spent. that is a big number, and we need to work through the particulars. neil: again, i am probably a horrible sinner, but i am looking at the billion dollar

deficit. and i'm thinking, well, what will stop them from taking that money and using it for deficit relief? things that have nothing to do with this one image. in other words, what kind of strings are attached out of washington for any of them. have you checked this? remark well, that's a difficult question. we have, in my understanding, around $7 billion from fema right now. there is an additional something like $5 billion that could be made available. we are heering a 30 billion-dollar ticket, right there, that raises a red flag. you just asked what is this for? it is about replacing the grid and i think that it's kind of a stretch. maybe they are using it to pay

down their deficit spending. that is not appropriate. that is not what we are here for. we are not here to be a catchall for everything. we are here to help. neil: how does he get it? in other words coming as a democratic spending cut, a democratic friend of the president. is there much difficulty getting the money -- $30 billion -- how does the approval process go? >> he will be applying to fema. fema has $7 million available right now. neil: okay. >> so they will take action to approve the additional spending. and i think there is going to be real questions i'm asking for a blank check. so you have to tell us how this will be spent, and i think they will want to have some kind of oversight over it. we need to be looking closely. spending is part of our problem. it is a big part of our problem. and we have to be helpful and we

are not here to build a swimming pool when we lost is your proof. neil: congressman, thank you so much. paul ryan back in the nation's capital today. keep in mind that he was still able to run for his congressional seat. the house budget committee chairman again, he is going to continue being the loyal voice to the opposition. he, too, ii open to revenue. why alice rivlin does that can be the start of something good. she is next. what's next?

he's going to apply testosterone to his underarm. axiron, the only underarm treatment for low t, can restore testosterone levels back to normal in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18. axiron can transfer to others through direct contact. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and childr should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these signs and symptoms to your doctor if they occur. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. do not use if you have prostate or breast cancer. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased erm count;

ankle, feet, or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. see your doctor, and for a 30-day free trial, go to axiron.com. ve lately. but because of business people like you, things are beginning to get rolling. and regions is here to help. making it easier with the expertise and service to keep those wheels turning. from business loans to cash management, we want to be your partner moving forward. so switch to regions. and let's get going. together. neil: alice rivlin is with us now.

wonderful lady was with us last time, everything went one. ms. alice rivlin, thank you for coming. >> want got to be very. neil: let's talk a little bit about what happens with the fiscal cliff. do you think we will avoid it? >> i think that it is important that we avoid it because it could throw us back into recession. but we don't need is a tax increase and deep spending cuts, which are just across the board, a crazy way to cut spending even if you want to cut spending. neil: director, i know they seem

like they cuts, but tenures curbing the growth, we just did the lexicon on? >> well, it depends what you're talking about. the immediate sequestration cuts would be an appropriations right away. but you are right that with respect to entitlements, what we need to be talking about is how to cut the growth. we will have a lot more people that are seniors that will have earned benefits that are in social security. those programs are going to go. but they can grow as fast as the production now, or we will have an ever rising debt. neil: there is that. i forgot about that. let me ask you, senator patty murray has raised the

possibility is on one of the weekend talk shows, i think -- republicans don't budge on his tax thing, then we will go ahead and, you know, we will pick up the pieces in the new year. what do you think about? >> well, i think that is -- i think it is a position that democrats might take as a bargaining position. but i certainly hope that it doesn't happen. neil: i think there are some political calculations to it. i heard some democrats tell me that there is -- there is a strategy that they readily grant, it could be beneficial in a the long term. would he make of it? >> well, as i said, i think it's a mistake. the reason i think so is two reasons. the first is that we have had relatively slow growth.

if we raise taxes and cut spending and a big wallop, then we risk of going back into recession. then you are in a no-win situation. you can't make progress on the dead if you are back in recession. the other thing is it makes our government will totally dysfunctional. neil: that's not exactly a fox news alert, right? >> right, but we have to stop. neil: what would happen then if we got together and got a deal where we temporarily spend -- we avoid the cuts, maybe spend in the hopes that they will come back and put together real reform strategy. i mean, that is likely in one of my diet provinces. hope springs eternal, but it never comes to pass all the time. when the markets based on that and when they have to address a market meltdown?

>> well, i don't know the markets will do. but they will be pretty distressed if they went over the cliff, back into recession, dashed. neil: so you think that's a given? if we get the cliff, we are in a recession? >> i think it's very likely. the market reaction might not be immediate. we have already had some market reaction. possibly predicated on the expectation. but the main point is not the cliff per se, but that we have to get ourselves in the position for reducing the growth of our debt over time. that is going to take some cooperation between the two parties. this is the great moment to do it. we just had a horrible election campaign in which each side was blaming the other. but that is over. that is behind us. this is the moment together and

solve the problem. neil: do you think that now is the time -- leaving aside taxes on the wealthy and whatever, but the number has somehow grown to a a certain level and is growing. be that as of it may, the combination of those tax hikes, a lot of investment related assets, it's going to be a tough 2013 it all comes to pass. >> that is my point. we should not let that happen. we should do something better. i am not just for kicking the can down the road. [talking over each other] neil: i'm sorry, i wasn't clear. if we just raise the taxes on the wealthy, all the capitol gains related dividends and etc., not increasing for everybody, but that it could do

an economic center on us. >> there are lots of ways to change our tax codes. and i have been rather encouraged in the last two days, both by hearing paul ryan say that he was open to more revenues and john boehner said it as well. and the president has been also reaching across the aisle and talking about accommodations. neil: on the latter point, the person did say that there is a tax on the rich and they will veto it. >> he didn't say tax rates. the. neil: you are right. you just read my mmnd. >> it's pretty significant. neil: you are very right. do you think that we can get past this immediate home, or the republicans, if they offer closing loopholes and

deductions, that that will be enough to satisfy democrats, many who say no, that's not good enough. the rates must go up. >> well, i think the important thing is to have a progressive tax system so that upper income people who have done very well in this economy while other people were not, but i don't think you necessarily have to do it with the rates. you can do it with, you know, reducing deductions, with all kinds of other things. and i think there is a possible deal here. but the really important deal is not this one. it's what we do about the tax codes generally and about entitlement. neil: you are probably one of the smartest people i have ever interviewed. i always come back to this issue that i have with you. on a personal basis. this idea that the rich, and maybe i am testing it, it's only

fair that they pay more. i think about the top 2% of a 40% of the taxes, and more of this government spending will be saddled on them proportionately, because we blame ronald reagan, etc., we blame both to get to the point now where so many don't -- you can't keep this going, can you? you cannot argue in the name of fairness that small portion to everything. >> well, i don't think it is a small portion. >> you always leave out the payroll tax. >> 2% and 40%. >> they make a huge proportion. neil: you are okay with that?

>> what can't be denied is that over the last couple of decades, but particularly very recently, in comes at the very top, there is something in the top 1% has gone up very rapidly. and the rest of the country hasn't shared in the growth. neil: so the only way is to tax them more? >> no, the only way to correct this is to hire people with better skills and better jobs earning more. that is the main point. neil: you think the government can do that? >> i don't think the government alone can do that. but education was a big part of it. neil: alise rivlin, always a pleasure.

no technical problems at all this time. we look forward to having you back. neil: david asman will be coming back next.

neil: we have some new faces in the next administration. we have david axelrod leaving and tim geithner likely to follow. they can be very consequential. we have david asman and dee dee

with us. to i think it will be more of the same. hope springs eternal and for example, erskine bowles has been thrown into the ring. now, he announced that he's leaving in january. lowering tax rates and increasing -- in other words, he has to pay with a disqualification. neil: dee dee? >> i think he's going to keep it to the left. a lot of people, they are there for 14 months and then move on. that is the average time for a white house staffer. so it would be good for them to have change. that is a healthy thing. neil: you just switch the place settings.

they just want to make their own mark. >> president obama is consumed with wanting to make a difference and he has done so. changing the economy through obamacare,. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> as he told his russian friend, you haven't seen anything yet. neil: bipartisanship reaching out, you don't think that's a real? >> again, i don't want to rule out the possibility. i think we will see a lot by who replaces tim geithner. if he does, he will rely on the business and so forth. but look at what happens. >> he has his friends in there. [talking over each other] >> forgive me, but does anyone believe that a an organization like moveon.org -- [talking over each other] neil: we have the education union president on here and i

asked him to make one concession. [talking over each other] neil: they thought it was in regards to this teaching thing. it was being translated to sticking it to the rich. not all people are disproportionate and into the government in that way. >> isn't it time to man up? they didn't lose it by landslide. >> there are certain things that the democrats and republicans agree on. one is that we have to grow more. this growth rate is not

acceptable. the point is that we don't grow, we will have to face it somehow. [talking over each other] >> they are going to say, oh, sorry. i can't do it all the way. >> they will have an entire showdown. >> you invited me. >> you don't think they are really moving abroad? >> i think we see a slowdown of economy, for example, if we go into a recession, a lot of people think that we may go into recession in the next year. you will see governors. one thing is that we don't have enough revenue coming in because of the slowness of the economy. democrats and republicans agree. if you grow the economy committee will have more revenue coming in because there will be

more economic activity. >> it will come with higher taxes and -- [talking over each other] neil: well, i don't know. neil: all right, we will beeat d rights back. t! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purche, everday! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great nees deserve great rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. ♪ [ male announcer ] they are a glowing example of what it means to be the best. and at this special time of year, they shine even brighter.

come to the winter event and get the mercedes-benz you've always wished for, w for an exceptional price. [ santa ] ho, ho, ho, ho! [ male announcer lease a 2013 glk350 for $399 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. so, which supeast 4g lte service would yochoose, based on this chart ? don't rush into it, i'm not looking for the fastest answer. obviously verizon. okay, i have a different chart. going that way, does that make a difference ? look at verizon. it's so much more than the other one so what if we just changed the format altogether ? isn't that the exact same thing ? it's pretty clear. still sticking with verizon. verizon. more 4g lte coverage than all other networks combined.

neil: know what if you note who is going to the white house meetings